Comments Posted By Martin Morgan
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 22 Comments
TIME FOR MALIKI TO FILL OUT THE EMPTY SUIT
"America have now placed the power to make or break our effort in Iraq into the hands of a man who has not performed in the past and who has not proved himself strong enough, smart enough, or politically savvy enough to tackle the problems in Iraqi society head on and with the energy to do what is necessary for his government to succeed."
Wow. I never realized how much Maliki had in common with Bush!
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 11.01.2007 @ 11:38
JOINT CHIEFS QUESTION IRAQ TROOP "SURGE"
So the Wapo reports Bush and the Joint Chiefs are at odds over Jenna Bush's proposed marriage.
But that's just spin. The Joint Chiefs don't think Jenna should get married right now and definitely not to this guy, but they are not opposed, in principle, to Jenna getting married.
So really-there's no essential disagreement.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 19.12.2006 @ 13:07
GOP: SLOUCHING TOWARD THE WILDERNESS?
Funny you mention an Evans-Novak study.
I remember watching the old Capital Gang on the eve of the 94 midterms, and Margaret Carlson, Al Hunt et al were all denying the Republicans had any shot. I especially remember Mark Shields saying the Republicans had made a mistake in nationalizing the elections.Ha!
What I remember most of all is Bob Novak accurately predicting the Republican takeover-one of the few, if not only, pundits to do so.
I remember it so well because I was so psyched for that 94 victory.
Now-if Repubs hold on the House, I don't really care.To say the Republican revolution has been betrayed is an understatement. True, the American people had a lot to do with it, but the Repubs never proffered the slightest resistance.
Remember when we used to rally around cries of abolishing the Department of Education? It was in the official platform! 12 years in and a bill has never even been introduced?! Pathetic.
Oh yeah, Dems are weak on terror etc. I don't really give a rats ass-it's not like the Repub congress is doing a damn thing either. Bush will still be in charge, and maybe a Dem takeover will get his mind right.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 23.08.2006 @ 17:51
What about when Rumsfeld said:
"I'm not in the intelligence business"?
What the hell do the 7500 people employed at the Defense INTELLIGENCE Agency do all day?
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 5.05.2006 @ 11:02
Oops never mind. This really is a right wing nut house. See ya.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 12.04.2006 @ 11:48
P.S. I say that as a man who used to consider himself pretty to the right. I was all behind Clinton's impeachment and would have voted to convict him.
Now I believe my support for the Iraq war was based on lies froms Bush and Cheney.
And, in a way, I think letting Clinton off sent a bad signal to future politicians that the American people are okay with a little dishonesty. And maybe so, but not with me.That's why I want to see Bush and Cheney impeached.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 12.04.2006 @ 11:46
Mr. Moran
I agree. Telling the truth to the American people is sometimes just not practical.
It might, e.g., interfere with starting a war or something.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 12.04.2006 @ 11:41
Scrapiron-people telling the truth has never interfered in any criminal investigation of which I am aware. Indeed, it can only help criminal investigations. Sometimes, disclosure of the truth might even obviate the need to conduct an investigation! (which is itself helpful, preventing waste of judicial resources and all that).
Since the White House line continues to be "no comment" rather than "here's all we know" you might surmise what effect the truth would have here.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 12.04.2006 @ 11:16
Ok, like Fitzgerald, I'll concede the point.
Gee, if only Bush, Cheney, and/or even Libby would only hold a press conference and just tell us what happened, this would be so much easier.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 12.04.2006 @ 10:11
Actually I'd bet Fitzgerald had it right the first time, but the nuances of written testimony support an alternative interpretation and Libby's lawyers consequently protested.
Fitzgerald, having bigger fish to fry, conceded the point.
Please note the corrected version in no way excludes the first version as a correct interpretation of Libby's testimony.
And he conceded the point, no doubt, because this, in fact, has nothing to do with the "facts and substance" of the charges against Libby.
Comment Posted By Martin Morgan On 12.04.2006 @ 09:46
